3 ms·

You're taking two qualifiers that I assigned to different statements. Images are not a reliable way of getting information on ambushes. There is no way to know

You're taking two qualifiers that I assigned to different statements. Images are not a reliable way of getting information on ambushes. There is no way to know if those losses were during ambushes or shortly after the initial advances. Moreover, a big reason the OSINT community had such an issue with cataloguing them is because it was often difficult to tell whose it was and whether it was already accounted for earlier. They indeed sustained a high level of attrition. And yet, it was still a sustainable level of attrition. Russia is lacking soldiers that are needed to attack more than they lack equipment at this point in time.

KptMarchewa 5y ago
>Russia is lacking soldiers that are needed to attack more than they lack equipment at this point in time. I haven't seen any proof of that. There are rather reliable reports that large majority of stockpiled soviet-era weapons (tanks, BMPs...) is unusable in a short term due to large-scale corruption and lack of maintanence.
- sudosysgen 5y ago
  There is only evidence for the loss of 425 Russian tanks (following Oryx). Russia has around 5000 post-soviet era T-90s. There is no need for them to tap into their stockpile of Soviet era tanks. Even if they had to and only 10% of those stockpiles were usable short term, it would be enough to replenish their confirmed loses.